Late Saturday night, The Washington Postdropped a bombshell of a report related to a trove of documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The documents included 160,000 e-mail and instant-message conversations intercepted by the NSA, as well as 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts. The Washington Post says that the information spans from 2009 to 2012.

This article is the first acknowledgement that the cache of documents from Snowden includes not just documents describing how NSA operates, but actual intercepted communications. Those communications include both intelligence targets, as well as "people who may cross a target's path," the Post explained.

In the Post's analysis, “nearly half” of the files contained details that the NSA had marked as belonging to US citizens or residents, which the agency masked, or “minimized,” to protect those citizens' privacy. Still, despite the 65,000 minimized references to Americans that the Post found in the cache, 900 additional e-mail addresses were found unmasked “that could be strongly linked to US citizens or US residents.”

The Post did not reproduce any of the intercepted communications.

The paper does describe some of the valuable information that the NSA was able to gather in the sweeping surveillance method. “[F]resh revelations about a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into US computer networks,” are all contained within the communications that Snowden leaked. But many more, belonging to more than 10,000 account holders, are unrelated to national security and are decidedly personal, detailing “love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes.”

The Post also notes that while collection of third-party communications is unavoidable in many cases, agencies like the FBI are required “to stop listening to a call if a suspect’s wife or child is using the phone.” By contrast, the NSA “collected the words and identities” of every person in a chat room that a target entered, including the identities of lurkers who made no comment in the chat room. The NSA's general counsel “has testified that the NSA does not generally attempt to remove irrelevant personal content, because it is difficult for one analyst to know what might become relevant to another,” the Post reports.

In order to mask the identities of the people that appear incidentally in the intercepted communications, the NSA "minimizes" names and terms found in the communications that could identify “possible,” “potential,” and “probable” US persons and entities like companies, universities, or Web-mail hosts. “Some of them border on the absurd,” the Post writes, “using titles that could apply to only one man. A 'minimized US president-elect' begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current 'minimized US president' appear 1,227 times in the following four years.”

Finally and perhaps most disturbingly, the Post writes that NSA analysts are taught that PRISM and Upstream collection of communications only requires a “reasonable belief” that the communicator is foreign to satisfy spying regulations. “One analyst rests her claim that a target is foreign on the fact that his e-mails are written in a foreign language, a quality shared by tens of millions of Americans,” the Post notes. “Others are allowed to presume that anyone on the chat 'buddy list' of a known foreign national is also foreign.”

156 Reader Comments

Some of them border on the absurd,” the Post writes, “using titles that could apply to only one man. A 'minimized US president-elect' begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current 'minimized US president' appear 1,227 times in the following four years.”

Wait, am I reading this wrong, or does that mean the NSA wiretapped Obama both before and after he took office as their Commander-in-Chief? No wonder his views on civil liberties all did a complete 180.

Some of them border on the absurd,” the Post writes, “using titles that could apply to only one man. A 'minimized US president-elect' begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current 'minimized US president' appear 1,227 times in the following four years.”

Wait, am I reading this wrong, or does that mean the NSA wiretapped Obama both before and after he took office as their Commander-in-Chief? No wonder his views on civil liberties all did a complete 180.

How is this not the headline?

I assumed it meant other people were talking about, and not to, this now-anonymous President Elect.

Some of them border on the absurd,” the Post writes, “using titles that could apply to only one man. A 'minimized US president-elect' begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current 'minimized US president' appear 1,227 times in the following four years.”

Wait, am I reading this wrong, or does that mean the NSA wiretapped Obama both before and after he took office as their Commander-in-Chief? No wonder his views on civil liberties all did a complete 180.

How is this not the headline?

I assumed it meant other people were talking about, and not to, this now-anonymous President Elect.

Ah, that is a possibility. Not that I would be at all surprised to learn that they had made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Wow this is an interesting addition to the list of fairly damming evidence against the NSA. It is somewhat reassuring that the NSA was able to discover some relevant information regarding foreign threats and foreign surveillance. That said, the question remains the same: at WHAT COST TO US CITIZENS was this information gathered?

I am still 100% sure that the activities of the NSA are by and large unconstitutional and should be stopped until they are made to solely apply to non- US citizens. You can't make your countrymen the enemy

So , are you telling me that Snoededn not only stole thousands of top secret documents and powerpoint slideshows , but also a large cache of hundred of thousands of intercepted emails by the NSA and that he gave them away to third parties so any journalist can read them?

Is that right? Are the journalists of the Washington Post reading and inspecting 160,000 emails ?

And are you telling me that actually the NSA was actively doing something to protect US citizens privacy, just like the FBI does?

People get really weird on this issue.

The United States government has a very long record of evil oppressive actions. Absolutely none of those actions have ever involved major violations of the Fourth Amendment, which strongly implies that anyone who thinks major violations of the Fourth Amendment are a precursor to a new Jim Crow should seriously read some fucking history books.

The fourth amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure. You think that's never happened on a significant scale? How about the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII? Or COINTELPRO, Hoover's FBI program that involved illegal surveillance of political groups?

A new Miranda warning should be read to everyone at birth: "Everything you say from now on can and will be used against you by the government of the United States of America".

So our expectations of privacy are now subject to the whims and fancies of individual analysts? It's even creepier when just lurking in a chat room gets you marked. With such a panopticon, something that would make the Stasi look like playground snitches, everything you have ever said or written down can be used against you at any time.

This is government gone off the rails. When's the next American Revolution?

A new Miranda warning should be read to everyone at birth: "Everything you say from now on can and will be used against you by the government of the United States of America".

So our expectations of privacy are now subject to the whims and fancies of individual analysts? It's even creepier when just lurking in a chat room gets you marked. With such a panopticon, something that would make the Stasi look like playground snitches, everything you have ever said or written down can be used against you at any time.

This is government gone off the rails. When's the next American Revolution?

I'm sure that there will be people who will attack Snowden for revealing raw 'intelligence' data to the Post. But given the curtain of misdirection, half-truths and lies that the adminstration, intelligence leaders and their defenders in Congress hide behind, this was the only to know for certain that suspicions of lying are not merely suspicions.

Also, QFT from the Post article:

Quote:

In Snowden’s view, the PRISM and Upstream programs have “crossed the line of proportionality.”

“Even if one could conceivably justify the initial, inadvertent interception of baby pictures and love letters of innocent bystanders,” he added, “their continued storage in government databases is both troubling and dangerous. Who knows how that information will be used in the future?”

I can't++ this enough.

Anything that can happen, will eventually happen. Put this much power into the hands of an un-accountable bunch, and abuse will eventually happen.

In fact, I'd assume that this already has happened. One of the most troubling things about the Post article is that all of this 'incidentally collected' data is stored by the NSA and distributed amongst its government 'customers'. We've already read about how the DEA uses this data to get drug dealers, while lying about the source of their information while seeking warrants.

Do you have an email address?If so, have you ever received spam messages for the sale of Viagra or the payment of transfer taxes for the inheritance of African princes?

If so, then the NSA has reasonable grounds that you are communicating with a foreigner. This assessment is done not by a judge, but a scum-sucking analyst. If Snowden is so evil, how could we possibly trust those like him to make these fine determinations?

Pretty much the very first revelation Snowden made was that they only needed to be 51% sure that something was foreign before they used it. That means that if 90% of the people who speak Chinese live in not the US, they can safely assume that all messages in Chinese are not from Americans. If a majority of the people who speak Spanish live in a) Mexico, or b) Argentina then the Feds can be 51% sure that a communication in Spanish involves Mexicans and/or Argentinean and is therefore not American.

The NSA is a Signals Intelligence Agency. They collect Signals. Your emails are signals. This means that if your emails are in a foreign language they are supposed to have them on their servers.

I'm not saying either policy is particularly justifiable, I'm just wondering if anyone who has actually thought about these issues at all thinks any of this is News.

Frankly I'm not surprised that my post on the issue is being downvoted to oblivion. Americans have always preferred ridiculous philosophy-based theories of freedom, starting from assumptions that seemed reasonable in 1789; to anything informed by reality.

So , are you telling me that Snoededn not only stole thousands of top secret documents and powerpoint slideshows , but also a large cache of hundred of thousands of intercepted emails by the NSA and that he gave them away to third parties so any journalist can read them?

Is that right? Are the journalists of the Washington Post reading and inspecting 160,000 emails ?

And are you telling me that actually the NSA was actively doing something to protect US citizens privacy, just like the FBI does?

People get really weird on this issue.

The United States government has a very long record of evil oppressive actions. Absolutely none of those actions have ever involved major violations of the Fourth Amendment, which strongly implies that anyone who thinks major violations of the Fourth Amendment are a precursor to a new Jim Crow should seriously read some fucking history books.

OTOH, the precursors to actual Jim Crow were a bunch of middle class and better white people getting extremely upset that the Reconstruction-era governments were playing fast and lose with Constitutional restrictions on Federal power.

Their response of extreme restrictions on Federal power allowed several black majority states (both South Carolina and Mississippi were black majority, and the KKK''s ethnic cleansing would not 'fix' that little 'problem' until the 20s and 30s) to totally disenfranchise those majorities, creating actual Jim Crow.

Tactics that bad guys used included demonstrations with firearms, illogical restrictions on voting that just happened to only disenfranchise black folks, and more then a little physical violence. Interestingly none of these government played fast and loose with any law enforcement restrictions. In fact they tended to minimize their own police power.After all if they had that police power they'd have to investigate things like lynchings...

And if you point any of this out; or point out the obvious parallel between thinking Snowden is a fucking hero for exposing this while not denouncing a) Stop and Frisk, b) voter id, and c) open carry demonstrations you will be accused of d) being a friend of Federal tyranny and en enemy of freedom.

Oh well. This is the United States. Actually being a friend of freedom means that, pretty much by definition, you will be accused of both, because our Federal government is specifically designed to be not powerful enough to stop non-governmental groups from oppressing their neighbors.

Anybody want to take odds on how long it will be before "friends of freedom" down vote this so they don;t have to see it anymore?

What else does Snowden and the rumoured second leaker have? The scope of NSA's programs get wider and wider with each release, the violations mount, but I don't see the American people beyond the tech community giving a damn.

What would it take to get Americans protesting in front of each state capitol and in DC?

Pretty much the very first revelation Snowden made was that they only needed to be 51% sure that something was foreign before they used it. That means that if 90% of the people who speak Chinese live in not the US, they can safely assume that all messages in Chinese are not from Americans. If a majority of the people who speak Spanish live in a) Mexico, or b) Argentina then the Feds can be 51% sure that a communication in Spanish involves Mexicans and/or Argentinean and is therefore not American.

The NSA is a Signals Intelligence Agency. They collect Signals. Your emails are signals. This means that if your emails are in a foreign language they are supposed to have them on their servers.

Really! ? This argument is legit batshit. This is the problem with mass surveillance. By adhering to this "51%" rule, you pretty much guarantee that you dont comply with the directive to not spy on citizens. But thats not the point. The point is that they have access to information on the other 10% of signals belonging to citizens. The access to (and retention of) this data is the miscarriage.

On the internet, you can never be 100% certain where anybody physically is, or what their nationality is, and since most of people using the internet are not American's physically within America, everyone can be assumed to be 'foreign'.

Why are you insisting that we're surprised by this? It's more like disgusted. I think you're the one who doesn't understand something.

Quote:

The NSA is a Signals Intelligence Agency.

Yes but the thing you refuse to acknowledge is that their are boundaries. If I work for the IRS then it's my job to collect money. That doesn't mean I collect money without restraint at any cost. When the IRS decided to go after political advisories of the Obama administration did you jump up and down saying "why are you surprised by this? It's their job to collect money!"

i'm confused as to how illegal detainment of Japanese-American citizens didn't constitute violation of the 4th amendment which specifically speaks to search and seizure without a proper warrant.

as far as this bombshell goes, i'm pretty sure that the Post could release any information at this point, up to and including that the NSA was using the mic in cellphones to spy on US citizens and the majority of citizens would not be bothered. between the drawing of political lines and straight up apathy, it doesn't seem like most people care.

Pretty much the very first revelation Snowden made was that they only needed to be 51% sure that something was foreign before they used it. That means that if 90% of the people who speak Chinese live in not the US, they can safely assume that all messages in Chinese are not from Americans. If a majority of the people who speak Spanish live in a) Mexico, or b) Argentina then the Feds can be 51% sure that a communication in Spanish involves Mexicans and/or Argentinean and is therefore not American.

I'm going to say no on that one. Discriminating on the language spoken is effectively racism. You might as well say to not record subjects with blue eyes.

Reread your history. Then reread the Fourth Amendment. It's not nearly as broad as you think it is.

The Constitutional violations against the Japanese included detention without a proper warrant (5th Amendment), loss of property in California (also the 5th, the "Takings clause"), racial discrimination (14th), and misuse of Census data (the Feds arrested anybody who'd told the Census Bureau they were Japanese, this is the only time that Census information has been used against the people who gave it). But there is no 4th Amendment violation. Moreover this just strengthens my assertion that the Feds are not to be feared. The people of Cali would have started Mississippi-style lynch mobs iof left to their own devices.

You did leave out the FBI spying on MLK Jr. and the rest of the Hoover stuff, and he did some stuff that would be comic villain-esque if not for the fact that it were real.